Brokeback Watchtower

Joined

• started 309 topics
• posted 3,539 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Brokeback Watchtower

• 
  110

  Jehovah’s Witness who posted criticisms on Reddit can remain anonymous, judge rules

  by Tameria2001 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/jehovah-s-witness-who-posted-criticisms-on-13855357.php.

  i had this article pop up about the darksilver case.

  it says a federal magistrate in san francisco has now ruled that darksilver can remain anonymous but then it says except for identification to lawyers for the religion’s watchtower publication.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBx4TmBdDPQ
  
• 
  41

  My apeal of disfellowshiping letter

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the first question is:.

  i ask you would paul even think of doing such as thing as the wt has done here?????

  i asked them not to keep double-talking me but to just come out and say what the charges are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  CZG,

  LOL!
• 
  110

  Jehovah’s Witness who posted criticisms on Reddit can remain anonymous, judge rules

  by Tameria2001 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/jehovah-s-witness-who-posted-criticisms-on-13855357.php.

  i had this article pop up about the darksilver case.

  it says a federal magistrate in san francisco has now ruled that darksilver can remain anonymous but then it says except for identification to lawyers for the religion’s watchtower publication.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  It seem that the Watchtower corporation has been given the proverbial White Elephant in this case good luck WT in this one, you need it jehobabba left the building.
• 
  41

  My apeal of disfellowshiping letter

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the first question is:.

  i ask you would paul even think of doing such as thing as the wt has done here?????

  i asked them not to keep double-talking me but to just come out and say what the charges are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  I think it may be about legislation that protect an individual right to freedom of thought and speech to reduce the power of these blood sucking cults that don't give 2 shits about children being abused?

  I bet it is already in the works but what about some good proposals to our legislator of what ever government to get some kind of legislation in the works to combat these blood sucking beast.
• 
  41

  My apeal of disfellowshiping letter

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the first question is:.

  i ask you would paul even think of doing such as thing as the wt has done here?????

  i asked them not to keep double-talking me but to just come out and say what the charges are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  The year 2001 was a horrible year I was DF'd publicly I think june or july and then august, and then bam 911, the world trade center gets flown into, my mother died april, that year as well.

  I wonder what type of sympathy a jury would have for such a person suing the WT corp for emotional damaged done with extreme malice toward those trying to break away from their clutches because they are delusional ego maniacs, that have a severe case of extreme denial of reality and are delusional driven to prove they are God's Earthly Organization?
• 
  110

  Jehovah’s Witness who posted criticisms on Reddit can remain anonymous, judge rules

  by Tameria2001 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/jehovah-s-witness-who-posted-criticisms-on-13855357.php.

  i had this article pop up about the darksilver case.

  it says a federal magistrate in san francisco has now ruled that darksilver can remain anonymous but then it says except for identification to lawyers for the religion’s watchtower publication.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  A little more of the case:

  Darkspilver presents evidence to show that revealing his identity to Watch Tower would
  chill his speech on the Reddit forum. He selected that forum because it was a place where he
  could communicate anonymously with other current and former Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Dkt. 8-1, ¶
  5.) He is concerned that, if Watch Tower discovers his identity, the revelation of his identity
  would damage or destroy his relationships with friends and family who are active members of the
  Jehovah’s Witness community. (Id., ¶ 12.) Speaking anonymously is necessary for him to feel
  comfortable participating in open discussions about religious teachings and practice. (Id., ¶ 5.)
  Darkspilver has already stopped posting on the Reddit forum and will not begin again if his
  identity is revealed. (Id., ¶ 12.)
  Watch Tower disputes Darkspilver’s assertion that his free speech will be chilled by citing
  to statements made by other individuals posting on the Reddit forum stating that they would not be
  deterred from speaking and by the fact that the size of the forum has grown since Watch Tower
  issued the subpoena. (Dkt. 12-2.) Considering that this is a forum for former Jehovah’s Witnesses
  – people who have already left the religion and, presumably, the community – it is not surprising
  that some expressed that they would not be deterred from speaking if their identities were
  revealed. But select quotes from others do not undermine Darkspilver’s expressed concern over
  speaking openly about his views on Jehovah Witness’ practices. Moreover, to the extent other
  current Jehovah’s Witnesses are publishing anonymous posts on this Reddit forum, they also
  might have concerns similar to Darkspilver.
  Watch Tower further argues that Watch Tower is not Darkspilver’s local church and has no
  ability to excommunicate him from his local congregation. (Polidoro Decl., ¶ 10.) Nevertheless,
  Darkspilver has expressed substantial concerns over having his identity revealed to anyone in the
  Jehovah’s Witness community. The Court finds that Darkspilver has demonstrated significant
  Case 3:19-mc-80005-SK Document 18 Filed 05/17/19 Page 12 of 18

  
  Un ited States D istric t Court
  
  No rthern Distric t of California
  
  harms if his identity were revealed publicly or even if it were revealed to Jehovah’s Witnesses in
  his congregation.
  On the other hand, if Watch Tower cannot determine Darkspilver’s identity, Watch Tower
  would lose its ability to enforce its copyright. However, in evaluating the balance of the harms,
  the Court finds that it should address Darkspilver’s defense of fair use. As the Ninth Circuit has
  made clear, although Darkspilver bears the burden of demonstrating fair use, “for purposes of the
  DMCA – fair use is uniquely situated in copyright law so as to be treated differently than
  traditional affirmative defenses. . . . [F]air use is ‘authorized by law[.]’” Lenz, 815 F.3d at 1153;
  see also id. at 1151 (“Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law.”)
  Moreover, because fair use is a non-infringing use authorized by statute, a copyright holder must
  consider the existence of fair use before issuing a takedown notification under the DMCA, which
  is required before obtaining a subpoena. Id. at 1153; see also 17 U.S.C. §§ 512(c)(3)(A),
  512(h)(4). If Darkspilver’s posting of the advertisement was fair use, then it was not infringing
  and Watch Tower suffered no harm.
  Moreover, the fair use doctrine is also relevant because Darkspilver is asserting a First
  Amendment right to comment on the advertisement. As the court in Art of Public Living
  explained, while copyright infringement is not protected by the First Amendment, “copyright law
  contains built-in First Amendment accommodations.” Id., 2011 WL 5444622, at *6 (quoting
  Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 219-20 (2003)). Of those protections or accommodations of the
  First Amendment, “[p]erhaps the most important is the doctrine of fair use, which allows the
  public to use copyrighted works ‘for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
  teaching . . . and scholarship.’” Id., 2011 WL 5444622, at *6 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 107) (citing
  Elvis Presley Enters. v. Passport Video, 349 F.3d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 2003) (“First Amendment
  concerns in copyright cases are subsumed within the fair use inquiry.”); see also Nihon Keizai
  Shimbun v. Comline Bus. Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65, 74 (2d Cir. 1999) (“First Amendment concerns
  are protected by and coextensive with the fair use doctrine.”).
  “The fair use exception excludes from copyright restrictions certain works, such as those
  that criticize and comment on another work.” Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d
  
• 
  110

  Jehovah’s Witness who posted criticisms on Reddit can remain anonymous, judge rules

  by Tameria2001 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/jehovah-s-witness-who-posted-criticisms-on-13855357.php.

  i had this article pop up about the darksilver case.

  it says a federal magistrate in san francisco has now ruled that darksilver can remain anonymous but then it says except for identification to lawyers for the religion’s watchtower publication.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  Reading some of past landmark decisions is fascinating because I feel the more publicity this case gets the deeper the hole the Watchtower corporation gets into. It is all down hill from here for the WT's case:

  Determining the First Amendment Test.
  “It is well established that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech.”
  Art of Living Found. v. Does 1-10, 2011 WL 5444622, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (citing
  McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995) (“An author’s decision to remain
  anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication,
  is an aspect of the freedom protected by the First Amendment”). Moreover, the protection for
  anonymous speech applies to speech on the internet. In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d
  1168, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[O]nline speech stands on the same footing as other speech –

  here is ‘no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied’ to
  online speech.”) (quoting Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997)). “As with
  other forms of expression, the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust
  exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without “fear of economic
  or official retaliation ... [or] concern about social ostracism.” Id. (quoting McIntyre, 514 U.S. at
  341-42).
  “The right to speak, whether anonymously or otherwise, is not unlimited, however, and the
  degree of scrutiny varies depending on the circumstances and the type of speech at issue.” In re
  Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2011). “[T]he nature of the speech
  should be the driving force in choosing a standard by which to balance the rights of anonymous
  speakers in discovery disputes.” Id. at 1177; see also Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC v. Automattic,
  Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (noting that courts begin “by considering the
  nature of the speech before determining the appropriate standard”).
  Courts apply a rigorous or “most exacting” standard when the speech is political, religious,
  or literary. In contrast, commercial speech is afforded less protection. In re Anonymous Online
  Speakers, 661 F.3d at 1177. Where, as here, the speech touches on a matter of public interest,
  courts in this district have applied a stronger standard than if the speech were commercial. See
  Highfields Capital Management, L.P. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see also Art
  of Living Found. v. Does 1-10, 2011 WL 5444622, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011).
  In Highfields, the speech at issue was postings of “sardonic commentary on a public
  corporation; through irony and parody, these bulletin board postings express[ed] dissatisfaction
  with the performance of the stock and the way company executives choose to spend company
  resources.” Highfields, 385 F. Supp. 2d at 975. The speech also expressed disapproval or
  criticism of the corporation’s largest single shareholder. Id. The speech expressed “views in
  which other members of the public may well be interested” and that the speaker had the right to
  express anonymously. Id. The court noted speaker’s rights to speak anonymously on these topics
  were vulnerable and precarious and “close to the central societal values that animate our
  Constitution.” Id.
  Case
  

  If WT legal makes it known to the GB or service department who the mole is they are in some very deep doo doo. Darkspilver is now a Teflon Don thanks to this, I think this case will do tremendous harm to the Watchtower Corporation and all it other corporation as these become public in the shell game of who do you sue.

  These guys in legal got to be complete ass holes or ordered by complete ass holes to make these cases and hoping to win and put a stop to people leaking sensitive information to the public who have a right to know they are being scammed by a greedy fuck up mind control cult that abuses kids no less? To put it bluntly.

  This Watchtower attorney talks to the judge like a complete ass hole in denying the true nature of these kangaroo court proceeding orchestrated by them to punish those the WT don't like. Loser what a loser! Want a bet the Judge had google the WT corporation and knows of all the scandals and how they handle people to control them, and that they are full of lies and half truths. I'm sure the Judge has done some home work and know all about the WT corp. because it is easily found on the internet.
• 
  41

  My apeal of disfellowshiping letter

  by D wiltshire in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the first question is:.

  i ask you would paul even think of doing such as thing as the wt has done here?????

  i asked them not to keep double-talking me but to just come out and say what the charges are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  Just doing searching of my past JC 18 years ago.
• 
  4

  Press Release from the Organization!!!!

  by Roamingfeline in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  by the associated press.

  filed at 2:40 p.m. et.

  new york (ap) -- an organizational shakeup under way among the jehovah's witnesses may have been ordered by the faith's leaders to shield themselves from lawsuits over the group's religious practices, dissenters say.. a spokesman for the group denied the allegation.. the watch tower bible and tract society of pennsylvania, as the group is officially known, had been run by a governing body.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  A spokesman for the group denied the allegation.

  The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, as the group is officially known, had been run by a Governing Body. But on Saturday, president Milton Henschel, 80, and the six other board members resigned, and it was announced that religious and administrative duties will be divided, with three newly formed corporations running U.S. operations.

  Under the changes, the religious leaders will not be officially involved with the Watch Tower society.

  I think the Governing Body is trying to become unreachable, and not have to appear in court as that would be a disaster because they are so delusional and in denial of reality. That way they are pretty much untouchable until the money runs out at least.

  Just look at GB member Jackson's testimony before the Australian RC, and Gerrit Losch's sign statement to the court about not being affiliated with the WT corp. to get out of a supeona and testifying in court.

  https://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/i-do-not-answer-to-watchtower-stunning-gerrit-losch-declaration-revealed
  
• 
  110

  Jehovah’s Witness who posted criticisms on Reddit can remain anonymous, judge rules

  by Tameria2001 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/jehovah-s-witness-who-posted-criticisms-on-13855357.php.

  i had this article pop up about the darksilver case.

  it says a federal magistrate in san francisco has now ruled that darksilver can remain anonymous but then it says except for identification to lawyers for the religion’s watchtower publication.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  I think the Watchtower's attorneys will reveal information to their masters at WT headquarters and let the lawsuits begin. The WT is desperate and so they will probably shoot themselves in the foot legally on this court order. Boy their legal team is being spread mighty thin with all the legal battles they got going. I would hate to be an attorney for the retards running the WT.

  If they put their legal team in more jeopardy by making them reveal who DS is then I'm sure a big rift will happen inside WT legal department and the GB, which with all the legal problems they are facing in the courts is not going to have a very good out come for the financial situation of the WT.

  I think this is a very fair decision by the court and look forward to the outcome for DS and WT corp.(may the GB rot in hell).